Ultrasound Assessment of Abdominal Muscle Thickness in Women With and Without Low Back Pain During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this preliminary study was to determine the differences in abdominal musculature thickness, within 1 month of delivery, in women who experienced back pain during pregnancy compared with those who did not. METHODS: B-mode ultrasound imaging was used to measure abdominal muscle thickness on 76 postpartum participants who participated in a larger study; 47 women experienced back pain during pregnancy, and 29 did not. Participant data were stratified by group, and primary comparisons were based on these grouping across the abdominal muscles, including rectus abdominis (upper and lower fibers), external oblique, internal oblique, and transversus abdominis. Means and standard deviations were also used to set parameters for future studies. RESULTS: In the present study, there was no difference in any abdominal muscle thickness between groups. Women with low back pain were significantly shorter (165.19 ± 6.64 cm) than women who did not have from back pain during pregnancy (169.38 ± 7.58 cm). All other demographics, such as age, weight, and date tested postpartum, were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed no variation in abdominal muscle thickness in women who had back pain during pregnancy and those who did not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".